The Case for Regionalism

Regionalism has long been a divisive topic in politics; in theory we agree with self-determination and taking politics closer to the people but in practise it’s a hassle and not widely popular. We tried it in the North East, it did not work out, so we can leave it alone for a generation. However, recent events have brought regionalism back into the political frame, not that it ever left mine. With an impending referendum on Scottish Independence, the constitutional future of Britain is in the hands of five million Scots. A “Yes” vote would not only cause a significant shift in the governance of Scotland but could reshape the structure of governance in Britain. Scottish Independence pushes regionalism back on the table.

A broad and preliminary structure should be laid out; it would make sense to split the UK into eleven regions based upon the NUTS division (essentially the eleven constituencies for the EU parliament). The duties of national government will be laid out, such as foreign policy, representing Britain abroad, overseeing the regions, alleviate poverty, give some guidelines and regulation over health, education and security. A similar division as between Wales and the UK governments, though of course this may change over time.

The call for self determination has grown with the nscent of a new democratic age; voters know what they want and politics has moved closer to the people. Although there has been a decline in party membership, this has been matched by a rise in pressure groups and other forms of more direct democracy. Meanwhile, TV coverage has put politics in people’s living rooms every day, so now politics is not the preserve of an elite few. The people have become politicised, whether they like it or not. Regionalism will bring politics away from London and back to the people, thereby increasing accountability, institutional deliberation (a role Labour should be fulfilling anyway) and democracy.

Population increase puts increasing pressure on central government; regional government can alleviate pressure and make governance more efficient and accountable. Regionalism is a natural stage for every growing state. It is not feasible for sixty two million people to be governed from one parliament by 650, soon to be 600, MPs. Britain currently has an average of over 95,000 constituents per MP (soon to be over 100,000); this does not take into account the regional bias given to Scotland and Wales and most MPs seem to cover 70,000 voters. It is impossible for one MP to be accountable to that many people. Britain, alongside France and Italy, has a ratio far too high to make an MP accountable. Constituents already see far too little of their MP. Although constituency work is not as glamorous as other parliamentary work, it is still their priority; MPs should be members of their community before members of parliament. Regionalism puts politics, politicians and the decision making process closer to the people. By inherently taking power to the people, it makes deliberative democracy easier and builds society ‘with’ the people instead of ‘for’ them. Devolved government devolves responsibility closer to the constituent.

Population increase also makes a governing consensus more difficult. As contradictory as it sounds, unity requires devolution and the strengthening of regional culture. Devolution allows the North East to do what people in the North East want without affecting the South East, while it allows the South East to do what people in the South East want. One region is hard Labour, the other hard Tory; no matter which party is in government a large part of the population will be dissatisfied. As Disraeli said in his novel Sybil; Britain is like “two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws”. Disraeli calls these two nations “rich and poor”, but we call them “North and South”. The divide is too great to be reconciled; as incomprehensible as it may sound to us, there are some people who consider Thatcher to be the greatest Prime Minister ever, and spent the thirteen years of Labour complaining. The North East does not want to be governed by Conservatives, the South East does not want to be governed by Labour. The two regions are too different and have different needs and aspirations that cannot be met by one unitary government based in London. The North East should govern the North East, the South East should govern the South East.  

Britain is a remarkable system. The governing party can pass any law they want. We call ourselves a democracy, but; a party can control 55% of the house with only 35% of votes, the executive is formed from the legislature, party whips and strong party allegiance gives full control of the legislature to the executive, collective government responsibility means there can be no public disagreement within the cabinet, private members bills can be pigeonholed as the government controls the parliamentary timetable, committees are not autonomous from the executive so the governing party can pass any bill through committees, there is no written constitution to limit or define powers, the Prime Minister is as powerful as he makes himself which under a ‘Presidential’ style becomes nothing short of tyranny, Royal Prerogative still exists (thankfully limited by Brown), there is effectively no second chamber, that second chamber is hilariously undemocratic, coalitions are rare and even when there is a coalition, it is one sided, power resides wholly in Westminster as local government has very limited power. And that’s just why Britain is institutionally undemocratic; the behaviour of politicians leaves a lot to be desired. I think I covered it all. Basically, the governing party can pass pretty much anything they want to. The only limits to this are custom, a one year veto by the House of Lords and the EU. Let Sic Semper Tyrannus be our call, and let it be met with the fragmentation of power away from London and back to the people by regional government.

Scottish Independence makes regionalism an imperative for Labour. It is very difficult for Labour to control Westminster without MPs from Scotland, and impossible should Wales follow suit. The future of Labour depends upon regional assemblies; we cannot force Scotland to stay in the union simply for the sake of the party, nor can we bank on a ‘No’ vote. Without Scottish or Welsh MPs, Britain would turn into a Luxembourg where the Christian Democrats have governed for 61 of the past 65 years; effectively a one party state (worse than that; it’s the other party). Scottish Independence would be catastrophic for Labour; England is overwhelmingly Conservative, regional government would allow the Labour parts to be governed by Labour. The time to act is now. The case for regionalism needs to be established.

There are two main arguments against regionalism; cost and the breakup of the union. These are fair criticisms but they are flawed. The main reason the North East Assembly referendum was defeated in 2003 was primarily because of cost, though also because of a misunderstanding. The cost of regionalism can be met by getting rid of the 700+ members of the House of Lords and replacing them with 55 elected ‘Lords’ (they can keep the name); five from each region. Having an electorally accountable upper chamber would also pave the way for the fragmentation of power at Westminster; giving more power to the Lords and limiting the one party dominance in our system. The cost can further be made by cutting MPs pay to that of a teacher; politicians should lead by example, it is not enough that their pay is ‘frozen’. Not only does it need to be cut, it needs to be slashed – do Tory millionaires really need their MP wages? Meanwhile, it is important not to repeat the Holyrood saga; the cost of the Scottish Parliametn building ballooned from £10million to £240million in five years. There is no need to create new buildings, just use old ones. Regionalism is not an expansion of government but a reallocation of it; cost is not an issue. I cannot guarantee that regionalism will be cheaper, and doubtless it will run at a loss for the first few years, but it will not be as expensive as the critics claim. As for destroying the union; it is a fair comment but I disagree. Having a strong centralised government creates division. Rather, regionalism would save the union if anything. It would unite us in diversity rather than divide us in our unity. The North East will always be England, regionalism will not change that; is North Saxony any less German? Is Alabama any less a part of the USA?

An actual criticism is the possible emergence of power monopolies and ‘abandoned voters’. For example, if there was a devolved North East Assembly, the Labour Party would have a monopoly over power; year in, year out. The same is true of the Conservatives in the South East. That leaves Conservative voters in the North East and Labour voters in the South East abandoned and doomed to be governed by a party they disagree with.

I expect to see regionalism come up in the future, especially with Scottish Independence being discussed more. Regionalism is democratic, it takes power back to the people and it simply makes sense. I’ll finish with another quote from Disraeli; “Power has only one duty: to secure the social welfare of the People”. It does not matter where that power is, the duty is the same, and regionalism would make fulfilling that duty easier.